Exercises

Your Actions Speak Louder

by Melvin Schnapper

A Peace Corps staff member is hurriedly called to a town in Ethiopia to deal with reports that one of the volunteers is treating Ethiopians like dogs. What could the volunteer be doing to communicate that?

A volunteer in Nigeria has great trouble getting any discipline in his class, and it is known that the students have no respect for him because he has shown no self-respect. How has he shown that?

Neither volunteer offended his hosts with words. But both of them were unaware of what they had communicated through their nonverbal behavior.

In the first case, the volunteer working at a health center would go into the waiting room and call for the next patient. She did this as she would in America—by pointing with her finger to the next patient and beckoning him to come. Acceptable in the States, but in Ethiopia her pointing gesture is for children and her beckoning signal is for dogs. In Ethiopia one points to a person by extending the arm and hand and beckons by holding the hand out, palm down, and closing it repeatedly.

In the second case, the volunteer insisted that students look him in the eye to show attentiveness, in a country where prolonged eye contact is considered disrespectful.

While the most innocent American-English gesture may have insulting, embarrassing, or at least confusing connotations in another culture, the converse is also true. If foreign visitors were to bang on the table and hiss at the waiter for service in a New York restaurant, they would be fortunate if they were only thrown out. Americans might find foreign students overly polite if they bow.

It seems easier to accept the arbitrariness of language—that dog is chien in French or aja in Yoruba—than the differences in the emotionally laden behavior of nonverbal communication, which in many ways is just as arbitrary as language.

We assume that our way of talking and gesturing is "natural" and that those who do things differently are somehow playing with nature. This assumption leads to a blindness about intercultural behavior. And individuals are likely to remain blind and unaware of what they are communicating nonverbally, because the hosts will seldom tell them that they have committed a social blunder. It is true to tell people they are rude; thus the hosts grant visitors a "foreigner's license," allowing them to make mistakes of social etiquette, and they never know until too late which ones prove disastrous.

An additional handicap is that the visitors have not entered the new setting as free agents, able to detect and adopt new ways of communicating without words. They are prisoners of their own culture and interact within their own framework. Yet the fact remains that for maximum understanding the visitor using the words of another language also must learn to use the tools of nonverbal communication of that culture.

Nonverbal communication—teaching it and measuring effect—is more difficult than formal language instruction. But now that language has achieved its proper recognition as being essential for success, the area of nonverbal behavior should be taught to people who will live in another country in a systematic way, giving them actual experiences, awareness, sensitivity. Indeed, it is the rise in linguistic fluency which now makes nonverbal fluency even more critical. A linguistically fluent visitor may tend to offend even more than those who don't speak as well if that visitor shows ignorance about interface etiquette; the national may perceive this disparity between linguistic and nonlinguistic performance as a disregard for the more subtle aspects of intercultural communication. Because nonverbal cues reflect emotional states, both visitor and host national might not be able to articulate what's going on.

While it would be difficult to map out all the nonverbal details for every language that Peace Corps teaches, one can hope to make visitors aware of the existence and emotional importance of nonverbal channels. I have identified five such channels: kinesic, proxemic, chronemic, oculesic, and haptic.

Kinesics—movement of the body (head, arms, legs, etc.). The initial example from the health center in Ethiopia was a problem caused by a kinesic sign being used which had different meanings cross-culturally. Another example, the American gesture of slitting one's throat implying "I’ve had it" or "I’m in trouble," conveys quite a different message in Switzerland. It means "I love you."

Americans make no distinction between gesturing for silence to an adult or to a child. An American will put one finger to the lips for both, while an Ethiopian will use one finger to a child and four fingers for an adult. To use only one finger for an adult is disrespectful. On the other hand, Ethiopians make no distinction in gesturing to indicate emphatic negation. They shake their index finger from side to side to an adult as well as to a child, whereas this gesture is used only for children by Americans.
    Thus, if visitors are not conscious of the meaning of such behavior, they not only will offend their hosts but they will be offended by them.
    Drawing in the cheeks and holding the arms rigidly by the side of the body means "thin" in Amharic. Diet-conscious Americans feel complimented if they are told that they are slim and so may naturally assume that to tell an Ethiopian friend this is also complimentary. Yet in Ethiopia and a number of other countries, this is taken pejoratively, as it is thought better to be heavy-set, indicating health and status and enough wealth to ensure the two.

Chronemics—the timing of verbal exchanges during conversation. As Americans, we expect our partner to respond to our statement immediately. In some other cultures, people time their exchanges to leave silence between each statement. For Americans this silence is unsettling. To us it may mean that the person is shy, inattentive, bored, or nervous. It causes us to repeat, paraphrase, talk louder, and "correct" our speech to accommodate our partner. In the intercultural situation, it might be best for the visitor to tolerate the silence and wait for a response.

Oculesics—eye-to-eye contact or avoidance. Americans are dependent upon eye contact as a sign of listening behavior. We do not feel that there is human contact without eye contact. In many countries there are elaborate patterns of eye avoidance which we regard as inappropriate.

Haptics—the tactile form of communication. Where, how, and how often people can touch each other while conversing are culturally defined patterns. We need not go beyond the borders of our own country to see groups (Italians and black Americans, for example) which touch each other more often than Anglo-Americans do. Overseas, Americans often feel crowded and pushed around by people who have much higher toleration for public physical contact and even need it as part of their communication process. A visitor may feel embarrassed when a host national friend continues to hold his or her hand after the formal greetings are over.

These five channels of nonverbal communication exist in every culture. The patterns and forms are completely arbitrary, and it is arguable as to what is universal and what is culturally defined.

Of course, there is no guarantee that heightened awareness will change behavior. Indeed, there may be situations where visitors should not alter their behavior, depending on the status, personalities, and values in the social context. But the approach seeks to make people aware of an area of interpersonal activity which for too long has been left to change or to the assumption that visitors to other countries will be sensitive to it because they are surrounded by it.

(1 366 words)

(From Peace Corps: The Volunteer )

 Text